Bob Goulder at Tax Analysts reports that "French Budget Minister, Jerome Cahuzac, was placed under investigation for allegedly using a secret offshore bank account to evade taxes." We don't have to reach too far to guess where that hidden bank account was:
The bank account in question was with the UBS branch in Geneva, Switzerland. It had been in place since the 1990s, at which time Cahuzac was a practicing plastic surgeon who specialized in hair transplants.I don't know how they found that account, but it's closed now:
Cahuzac allegedly closed the account in 2010, fearing detection by authorities, and transferred the funds to a separate offshore account in Singapore.Query whether France's tax authorities can get any information out of Singapore to confirm the existence of a hidden account there. Since this story apparently involves some kind of whistleblower with concrete information as to which confirmation could be obtained, there is a small chance of cooperation because France and Singapore have a tax treaty with the following exchange of info agreement:
1. The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall exchange such information as is foreseeably relevant for carrying out the provisions of this Convention or to theThis suffers from the usual limitations on request-activated (as opposed to automatic) info exchange: the first gov has to know what it doesn't know in order to get confirmation from the other gov. In other words, no fishing expeditions, and certainly nothing like what a FATCA would theoretically produce. But it does seem to preclude Singapore invoking bank secrecy protection. Will be interesting to see if this goes further.
administration or enforcement of the domestic laws ....
3. In no case shall the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 be construed so as to impose on a
Contracting State the obligation:
a) to carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and administrative practice of that or of the other Contracting State;
b) to supply information which is not obtainable under the laws or in the normal course of the administration of that or of the other Contracting State...
4. If information is requested by a Contracting State in accordance with this Article, the other Contracting State shall use its information gathering measures to obtain the requested
information, even though that other State may not need such information for its own tax
purposes. The obligation contained in the preceding sentence is subject to the limitations of
paragraph 3 but in no case shall such limitations be construed to permit a Contacting State
to decline to supply information solely because it has no domestic interest in such
5. In no case shall the provisions of paragraph 3 be construed to permit a Contracting State
to decline to supply information solely because the information is held by a bank, other
financial institution, nominee or person acting in an agency or a fiduciary capacity or
because it relates to ownership interests in a person.”
I will try to get a link but I heard today no parlimentary approval of the US Swiss IGA until late summer. The Swiss Government already expects similar demands will be made by the EU and could lead to difficulties getting the IGA approved. I was having a hard time reading the Germany to English translation but the Swiss goverment acknowledge in an emergency the US would allow the agreement to go unratified into 2014 without imposing witholding right away.ReplyDelete
You might want to check this out too:ReplyDelete
Full Reciprocity Under FATCA Is a Work in Progress, IRS Official Says
By Andrew M. Ballard
ORLANDO, Fla.–Although the United States has committed to achieving reciprocity regarding the exchange of financial transaction information under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, domestic banks are not subject to the same reporting requirements as are their foreign counterparts, an Internal Revenue Service official said Jan. 25.
According to Ted Setzer, manager of IRS’s Large Business & International Division, although existing requirements on U.S. banks will provide other governments with similar information required of foreign banks under FATCA, “clearly existing U.S. rules don’t require U.S. financial institutions to provide the exact same information that a foreign institution has to under FATCA.”
Responding to a question about reciprocity, Setzer said the United States had committed to such a concept. However, U.S. reporting rules for domestic banks “are what they are,” and do not require identification procedures identical to those required under FATCA, he said.
“How we get to full reciprocity and how long it takes is something we’ll have to be working on,” Setzer said.
I suppose the US might have to accept that Canadian customer indentification rules "are what they are"